Right of th ird parties cannot be adjudicated under such proceedings.

1. Thefirst accused in C.C.No.777 of 1989 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kovilpatti, against whom and two others, on a charge sheet filed by the first respondent herein for offences under Secs.406 and 420, I.P.C. and Secs.3, 7,42(i) read with Secs.1, 23 and 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. for a direction to the second respondent to produce the lorry seized in the case whose interim custody had been ordered to the second respondent by the learned Magistrate and to return the same to him.

2. Circumstances relating to the present application are briefly as follows: On 13.2.1989 one Paramasivam gave a complaint before the first respondent that one Selvam and Raja appeared before him on 8.2.1989 in the lorry bearing Reg.No.TDS 6895 at Kovilpatti and gave out their names as stated above and agreed to transport his 96 bags of blackgram worth Rs.55,159.20 and hand over the same to Jeyam Corporation, Madurai for a fare of Rs.550 that he entrusted the above blackgram load to the above two persons but that he learnt from Jeyam Corporation that the load had not been delivered to them and that the two persons had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the blackgram entrusted to them. The first respondent registered it as Cr.No. 108 of 1989 on his station for an offence under Sec.406, I.P.C. against the lorry driver Selvam and the cleaner Raja. During investigation, the lorry bearing Reg.No.TDS 6895 and other articles had been seized. The lorry had been remanded to judicial custody. During investigation, it transpired that the petitioner was the owner of lorry bearing Reg.No.TDQ 6541 Renukadevi, that the petitioner and the co-accused altered the number plate of the lorry from TDQ 6541 Renukadevi to TDS 6895 Murugan Thunai, that they also described themselves by false name and obtained delivery of 96 bags of blackgram from the complainant for delivering it to Jeyam Corporation, Madurai that they took the blackgram in the vehicle to Srivilliputhur, unloaded it in the house of their relative Krishanswami Naicker, representing to him that the blackgram belonged to them and requesting him to sell the same, that they would return in a week to collect the sale proceeds. At this stage, the case was reported and the vehicle and the blackgram were seized. The first respondent has now filed charge sheet against the petitioner and two others for the offences mentioned above, alleging that the lorry bearing Reg.No.TDQ 6541 Renukadevi belongs to the petitioner herein, that tax had not been paid and the permit for the vehicle not renewed after 31.12.1988, that the petitioner has no driving licence and the petitioner and the co-accused had altered the number plate and the name of the vehicle, making the complainant believe that the vehicle had the altered number and the altered name, gave their names also and committed misappropriation of the black gram entrusted to them by the complainant for deliver to Jeyam Corporation, Madurai.

3. The second respondent who has entered into a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner in respect of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TDQ 65,41 filed CrI.M.P.No.1813 of 1989 for interim custody of the vehicle and the learned Magistrate, without even notice to the petitioner bad ordered interim custody to the second respondent. On coming to know about the proceedings, the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.2826 of 1989 before the learned Magistrate for return of the vehicle to him and on the learned Magistrate dismissing the same, the present petition has been filed impleading the second respondent as well.

4. Thiru K.Jeganathan, learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the second respondent is a third party to the criminal proceedings, his claim could be enforced only in a civil forum, the petitioner has paid dues to the second respondent till the date of the seizure of the vehicle by the police and the criminal Court c